GA

Update
January 2019

HOW STABLE DO
YOU FEEL?
We’ve all been there. Either too high, too fast or quite simply,
too all-over-the-place. Here’s how to stabilise your mind – and your aircraft
W
hat do you do if the approach
is going to worms – hang on
and hope it will all sort itself
out further down the line, or
do you think ‘nope, this isn’t looking good,
let’s bin it and try again’? And if you do go
around what order are your actions going
to be in? I’ve seen the results of the former,
and they aren’t always pretty, while the
latter has produced some interesting
sequences of events…
In the commercial world there have
been a number of high profile incidents and
accidents that appear to have a common
link – CFIT on final approach because the
aircraft might not have been in the right
steady state for landing.
Commercial operators have strict
criteria that must be met to continue
an approach. In simple terms these are
based around a set of ‘gates’ that ordinarily
UNSTABLE APPROACHES
prescribe speed range, maximum rate of
descent, aircraft configuration, position
relative to desired flight path (lateral and
vertical) and minimum power settings.
If these ‘gates’ aren’t achieved by a
certain point, a go-around is mandatory.
Failure to comply at best results in a chat
with a Training Captain. But what relevance
does this have to General Aviation? I reckon
that some of these gate concepts are wholly
applicable to us and we should never be
afraid of throwing away an approach that
doesn’t meet some simple criteria.
The following thoughts are generic
because there are many variables that
contribute towards the decision on
whether or not to continue an approach:
pilot qualifications and experience,
aircraft performance and the operating
environment will all influence decision-
making. The overwhelming requirement,
though, is to make a decision. I have seen
the outcome of ‘botched’ approaches that
have been costly in both time and money.
Speed
In just short of 60 years there have
been more than 43,000 Cessna 172s
manufactured under various guises. We
all know it’s sturdy, relatively benign and
simple to operate with good short-field
performance and an undercarriage that
will take a significant beating. So I find
myself asking why I have observed so
many bent C172 firewalls, written-off
propellers and shock-loaded engines?
I have also seen a few aircraft implanted
in hedges at the far end of runways.
Investigation always seems to point
at landings that have been completed
despite the aircraft being unstable
on approach.
On certified aircraft the Aircraft Flight
Manual (AFM) is usually well constructed, ➤
JANUARY 2019 CLUED UP 01
 UNSTABLE APPROACHES
clearly describing the configuration
➤
options together with recommended
approach speeds. However, chatting with
pilots who have had such bad experiences,
without exception they have all selected an
approach speed at, or above, the highest
speed quoted in the manual.
Many pilots on approach add a few
knots for luck, not realising that these
extra knots actually contribute towards
them having to rely on luck. Sure, there are
times where extra speed may help (gusty
conditions) but, generally speaking, an
aircraft should be flown within the speed
range described in the AFM.
Importantly if there is a speed range
quoted, the top end of this range applies
to an aircraft at maximum weight, whereas
‘lighter’ aircraft should be flown towards
the bottom end of this range. Once the
desired speed is obtained pilots should
trim to it and minimise the amount of
control input necessary to maintain a
stable approach.
Excessive speed (energy) brings all
sorts of problems during landing. First, any
landing distance performance calculations
can be dismissed but, as importantly,
the aircraft is going to spend more time
losing energy in the flare before finally
touching-down. During this extended
time period, there is scope for the wind to
create mischief and the pilot to relax back-
pressure on the control column to try to
02 CLUED UP JANUARY 2019
expedite the landing. It’s this last
action that leads to bounced nosewheel
landings, prop strikes and bent firewalls.
My first top tip is to ensure that the
aircraft is trimmed at an appropriate
approach speed.
Rate of Descent and Power
While it’s relatively easy to adjust the rate
of descent in a light aircraft, some pilots
forget to address the secondary effects
of doing so. Whether rate of descent is
actually controlled by power or pitch might
be a common after-flying bar discussion,
the reality is that adjustment of either
requires a corresponding input from the
other. I like to think of it like this: Power
+ Pitch = Performance (P+P=P). So, if a
pilot chooses to fly an approach with an
excessive rate of descent, he or she needs
to carefully plan energy management
when finally reducing this rate of
descent in order to achieve the required
performance.
A low rate of descent or ‘shallow’
approach can also bring problems. It’s
likely that the engine will be developing
significant power while the aircraft is being
‘dragged in’, followed by a tendency to
cut or ‘chop’ the power over the runway
threshold to complete the landing.
At this point a ‘stable’ aircraft has just
become unstable; the P+P=P equation
has changed, slipstream effect over the
empennage has reduced and there is a
likelihood that increased control column
back pressure is required due to the aircraft
being out of trim.
Piece of advice number two – plan
and set a reasonable rate of descent.
In most GA aircraft, this is around 500-
750ft/min.
Aircraft Configuration
This element largely relates to flap settings
and ensuring the wheels are down (which
is good). Again, the key element is setting-
up the aircraft early enough that you do
not need to reconfigure at the latter stages
of the approach. Adding flap changes the
performance of the wing so you have to
adjust pitch and/or power to maintain the
desired performance.
That said, for many GA aircraft the
application of the last stage of flap merely
reduces speed by a few knots and this can
be used as part of the approach planning.
However, I strongly believe that pilots
shouldn’t significantly adjust flap settings
at low height and certainly not once in the
flare. Make sure you are trimmed in your
desired configuration.
Flight Path
There’s little point in being stabilised
speed, rate of descent and correct

configuration if the aircraft isn’t pointing
somewhere near the right direction. That
probably sounds a tad obvious, but we still
hear of, and read about, aircraft landing
long/short or off the side of the runway.
The art of flying a successful approach
is being stabilised so that you only need
to apply small adjustments to attain and
maintain the ideal flight path.
Going Around
One of the first manoeuvres taught to
students is the go-around. The rationale
(in case no-one ever mentioned it during
your training) is that there’s an increased
likelihood that early stage pilots won’t
achieve a stable approach and will
inevitably have to decide to ‘throw it away’.
Interestingly, as pilots become more
proficient in landing, they tend to become
less proficient in making go-around
decisions, perhaps due to pride, economic
factors or lack of confidence in completing
the manoeuvre. Whatever the reason,
there are numerous accident/incidents
each month that wouldn’t have happened
if the pilot had chosen to go-around from
an unstable approach and landing.
The manoeuvre should be instinctive,
and while the required actions might
require some urgency, they shouldn’t be
rushed. Again, keeping things generic,
the go-around should have the following
format:
A stable approach - nailed
‘If you are thinking
about going around,
you probably should
be going around’
• Apply full power – nothing less.
Be aware of rich cuts and carb heat.
Manage pitch – applying full power
will result in a change of pitch if not
managed. In some aircraft this change
is significant and you need significant
elevator force until you can trim out
some of this effort. Fly the aircraft,
don’t let it fly you.
• Arrest the descent – we’re not yet
looking to climb away, we want to stop
the aircraft from descending any further.
Some aircraft simply will not climb until
you have completed the next step.
• Reconfigure if necessary – any
reconfiguration should be minimal
and in accordance with the flight
manual. Ordinarily, this only involves
the removal of drag flap.
• Ensure you have climb speed –
do not try to climb if there is not
enough speed.
Nose, prop and wing damage is most common
Be prepared to go around
• Pitch up to an appropriate climb
attitude – select a climb attitude
that corresponds to the aircraft
configuration. At reasonable height
(a few hundred feet), remove flap,
raise gear etc.
Note: I haven’t mentioned RT
transmissions. The “go-around” call is
largely irrelevant and should take second
place to all of the above.
Finally, make the go-around decision early.
If you are thinking about going around,
you probably should be going around.
Summary
I hope these thoughts stimulate discussion
and encourage people to consider
their approach profiles. If I were to be
prescriptive, I’d offer that a pilot should
have an aircraft correctly configured
with a constant rate of descent and a
steady approach speed in trim, by about
300ft when positioning to land. If this
is achieved, the only challenge left is to
achieve and maintain an ideal flight path.
Dave Phillips is a Flight Examiner
(Aeroplanes), a Flight Instructor
CPL/PPL (Aeroplanes), holds an EASA
CPL(A) with instrument Rating and is a
Flight Calibration Captain.
JANUARY 2019 CLUED UP 03